OTTAWA – The federal government has so far spent nearly $700,000 fighting a disgruntled group of wounded Afghan veterans in court— a revelation that on Wednesday rekindled a political controversy the Conservatives had hoped was behind them.

During question period, Prime Minister Stephen Harper tried to cast the ongoing court battle as the legacy of a flawed policy that was foisted on Parliament nine years ago by Paul Martin’s Liberal government.

“The government is defending a decision of the previous government, supported by all parties in the House of Commons,” Harper said, referring to the new veterans charter, which the Conservatives have championed since coming to office in 2006.

“Since the previous government imposed the new veterans charter, it has enhanced veterans services and programs by some $5 billion — opposed by the Liberals and NDP.”

In response to a written question posed by the opposition, the Department of Justice said it spent $694,070 in legal fees, while National Defence spent $3,231. Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau used the cost to demand in the House that the lawsuit be dropped.

Liberal veterans critic Frank Valeriote described the government’s response as “hypocrisy,” noting that the issue for ex-soldiers is not the system itself, but the amount of funding within it.

“It is not the new veterans charter that is the problem, it’s adequacy of the funding given to those programs and the sufficiency of the awards given to our veterans through the application of the charter,” Valeriote said.

“Spending $700,000 a year to fight vets in court is not supporting our troops,” NDP Leader Tom Mulcair fumed during one heated question period exchange with Harper.

The ex-soldiers are plaintiffs in a class-action lawsuit in B.C. Supreme Court, calling the charter discriminatory under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms because it does not provide the same level of benefits and support as the old pension system.

In a statement of defence filed by federal lawyers, the government argues Ottawa has no special obligation or “social contract” with veterans, and that it is unfair to bind the current government to promises made nearly a century ago by another prime minister.

Mike Blais, president of Canadian Veterans Advocacy, called the legal bill “unconscionable” and called on the government to drop the lawsuit and negotiate a settlement.

“That money should have been spent on veterans,” Blais said.

“Taxpayers deserve better. I think if taxpayers knew that this government, Stephen Harper, was spending so much on lawyers — government lawyers — to fight the wounded in court, they would appalled.”

At issue in the court case is a 1917 pledge made on the eve of the Battle of Vimy Ridge by Sir Robert Borden, who was prime minister at the time, that effectively said the country would not fail to show its appreciation for those who’ve served.

Although never explicitly codified in law, that pledge has guided the country’s policy towards veterans for decades. The government’s apparent attempt to abandon it has been central to the recent unrest among veterans.

The government had hoped some of that unrest would be muted by the decision earlier this month to shuffle Julian Fantino out of Veterans Affairs and replace him with Erin O’Toole, a retired air force officer.

O’Toole spoke in the House of Commons this week about the government’s “tremendous obligation, recognized as far back as Robert Borden,” but he emphasized that the policy was “not frozen in time.”

How O’Toole plans to bridge the contradiction between the Conservatives oft-repeated, overflowing public affection for veterans and the reality of the government’s legal arguments and actions remains unclear.

For his part, Valeriote dismisses O’Toole’s comments.

“They’re just wiggle words,” he said. “The phrase ‘not frozen in time’ means he’s just looking to abrogate their obligation.”

O’Toole wasn’t willing to discuss the lawsuit or its costs Wednesday, but did say the issue remains a priority, noting it was the first thing he asked about after taking over from Julian Fantino earlier this month.

]]>http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/feds-spend-700000-in-court-fighting-veterans-class-action-lawsuit/feed/3Questions persist over timing of mental health funding for veteranshttp://www.macleans.ca/politics/questions-persist-over-timing-of-mental-health-funding-for-veterans/
http://www.macleans.ca/politics/questions-persist-over-timing-of-mental-health-funding-for-veterans/#commentsFri, 28 Nov 2014 23:39:31 +0000The Canadian Presshttp://www.macleans.ca/?p=645509Conservatives are on the defensive over reports that the mental health funding will take 50 years to distribute

OTTAWA – The Harper government was on the defensive again Friday over reports that the latest cash injection for mental-health services for veterans could take 50 years to be portioned out.

Conservative MP Parm Gill, the parliamentary secretary to the veterans affairs minister, deflected questions about the numbers, but noted the government’s plans to build a major operational stress injury clinic in Halifax and open other satellite offices across the country.

Last Sunday, the Harper government announced it would put up to $200 million into improved mental health care for veterans in a series of initiatives that stretch out over five, possibly six years.

But a Globe and Mail report Friday said only $19 million of that would be so-called up-front cash, with the rest being used to help top up the Veterans Affairs budget over the next 50 years.

The Conservatives got into similar trouble a few years ago when they announced $2 billion in improvements to the new veterans charter, but were later forced to admit much of the cash was for future budgets.

A spokeswoman for Veterans Affairs Minister Julian Fantino did not address the claim that some of the cash will take five decades to spend, but insisted that the government is budgeting responsibly over the long-term.

“To build on recent investments, last Sunday we announced increased mental health support for those in the Canadian Armed Forces, veterans, and their families,” Ashlee Smith said in an email.

“This government is ensuring that veterans receive compensation and support for today and the rest of their lives. It would be irresponsible not to do so.”

Making a political announcement with big dollar figures that stretch out over half a century is disrespectful to former soldiers who are in need of immediate help, said New Democrat critic Alexandre Boulerice.

“I think veterans deserve better,” Boulerice said. “They deserve to be treated (better)when they get back from the front.”

The Conservatives have been under fire for the last couple of weeks on veterans issues, but the pressure increased substantially Tuesday with auditor general Michael Ferguson’s scathing report on the handling of mental health claims.

Ferguson’s report said it takes one in five combat veterans up to eight months to find out whether the federal government will cover their treatment, a delay he described as unacceptably long.

The auditor’s report is just one of a series of studies released this year looking at the plight of soldiers and veterans.

]]>http://www.macleans.ca/politics/questions-persist-over-timing-of-mental-health-funding-for-veterans/feed/0Ottawa announces $200-million for military mental health programshttp://www.macleans.ca/news/canada/ottawa-announces-200-million-for-military-mental-health-programs/
http://www.macleans.ca/news/canada/ottawa-announces-200-million-for-military-mental-health-programs/#commentsSun, 23 Nov 2014 20:36:06 +0000The Canadian Presshttp://www.macleans.ca/?p=643499Federal government unveils plan to invest $200 million over six years for support for military members, veterans and family

OTTAWA – The federal government has announced $200 million over six years to support mental health needs of military members, veterans and their families.

The Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces also announced Sunday that an additional $16.7 million in ongoing funds will be available to support forces members, veterans, and their families.

The government says some of the money will fund completely digitizing the health records of all serving personnel, investing in brain imaging technology and extending access to Military Family Resource Centres.

It also says there will be additional investments in research aimed at finding better treatments and faster recoveries for serving members and veterans with mental health conditions.

Among the areas of research that will be undertaken is looking at how forces members transition from military to civilian life with an emphasis on those with service in Afghanistan.

The research will also look at the causes and prevention of veteran suicides, and ways to improve the recognition, diagnosis, treatment and well-being of veterans with mental health conditions.

The announcement says the Canadian Forces will hire additional staff to help educate serving members and their families in managing their reactions to stress, and recognizing mental duress.

The announcement comes just days after veterans learned that the federal department responsible for their care and benefits was unable to spend upwards of $1.1 billion of its budget over seven years.

Like other departments unable to spend their appropriation within the budget year, Veterans Affairs was required to return its unspent funds to the treasury.

The Royal Canadian Legion wrote Veterans Affairs Minister Julian Fantino on Thursday, demanding a detailed accounting of which programs had lapsed funding and why.

The figures put before Parliament show the veterans department handed back a relatively small percentage of its budget in 2005-06, but shortly after the Conservatives were elected the figure spiked to 8.2 per cent of allocation.

Mike Blais, head of watchdog group Canadians Veterans Advocacy, said the measures announced Sunday would provide a “marginal benefit” to veterans but stop short of what is needed.

“This is seriously not enough. It’s not enough resourcing, it’s not enough effort put forward in accepting this obligation” to mental health.

An Auditor General’s report on mental health services and benefits for veterans is due out Tuesday, and Blais said the funding roll-out was timed to get ahead of what is expected to be a scathing review.

“I think this is not an act of good faith — it’s an act that they’re responding to what’s going to be a very unfavourable Auditor General’s report,” he said.

Also announced Sunday was a new operational stress injury clinic, slated to open in Halifax in the fall of 2015.

In addition to the clinic in Halifax, Veterans Affairs Canada will expand satellite services in nine locations throughout the country, which are funded by Veterans Affairs, but are operated by provincial health authorities.

Canadian Forces members, flanked by members in LAV III military armoured vehicles, prepare to parade in the National Day of Honour in Ottawa on Friday, May 9, 2014. (Justin Tang/CP)

OTTAWA — The Harper government has taken to social media to make the case that it’s being generous to disabled veterans, but critics and the opposition say Conservatives are posting misleading information.

A chart laying out different scenarios of compensation was posted on the Veterans Affairs Facebook and Twitter accounts last week, showing benefits ranging from $6,743 per month to $10,260 per month, depending on a soldier’s rank.

The chart compares the “maximum” disability earnings with the pre-release salaries of a private, a sergeant, a captain and a major, and in each case suggests the veterans are coming out ahead.

It also contains a series of caveats — “support varies depending on individual circumstances,” for example — but NDP veterans critic Peter Stoffer says the chart is only being published to deceive the public.

Stoffer said the government is throwing everything, including the kitchen sink, into the calculations knowing full well the vast majority of soldiers never collect benefits that get anywhere near those numbers.

A spokeswoman for Veterans Affairs Minister Julian Fantino said the government is simply responding to the demands of ex-soldiers and the country’s veterans ombudsman for more details about the kind of support that’s out there.

“Veterans have said they want access to clear, easy-to-read information about the range of benefits and supports available to them, like the fact that they are eligible to receive thousands of dollars each month in just financial benefits from the government of Canada,” Ashlee Smith said in an email.

But Stoffer said the government is trying to make a case that it has already fulfilled its obligation to those who have served and that no further improvements are needed to the system.

“It is extremely misleading and they are just trying to pull the wool over the eyes of the Canadian people,” Stoffer said.

“Many, many veterans come nowhere near those amounts.”

Ray McInnis, director of the service bureau at the Royal Canadian Legion, said the figures the government is using are accurate, but only in theory.

The calculation, for example, uses a Grade 2 rating for the permanent impairment allowance, when in fact the vast majority of wounded troops fall under the Grade 3 rating.

“I don’t have a problem with them getting (veterans) to understand what you could be entitled to,” said McInnis. “Hopefully, the person looking at this is not going to look at that top number and just go across the board without reading the fine print.”

Other veterans groups say the information is blatantly misleading, suggesting that it portrays ex-soldiers as greedy in light of a class-action lawsuit that’s currently making its way through the courts.

The challenge, launched by veterans of the Afghan war, argues that the new system of lump sum benefits introduced in 2006 is discriminatory when compared with the pension-for-life regime introduced following the Second World War.

Veterans Affairs Minister Julian Fantino cited the $10,000 per month figure last spring in the House of Commons and during an appearance before the veterans committee.

What Fantino didn’t say was that only four out of 521 severely wounded veterans in the entire country qualify for that maximum entitlement. The eye-popping figure also includes the monthly Canadian Forces pension, a payment that’s made whether a soldier was injured or not.

The figures included in the newly released chart use the same calculation.

Indeed, when Veterans Affairs officials were asked in June to justify the minister’s claim, they would only say the figure represented a “scenario” and that precise calculations, given the cross-section of individual benefits, stipends and supplementary payments, was extremely difficult.

At the time, they estimated the average payout as ranging between $4,000 and $6,000 per month.

Stoffer said the chart is also misleading because it doesn’t accurately portray the hoops ex-soldiers have to go through in order to qualify for benefits.

Mike Blais, president of Canadian Veterans Advocacy, said he believes the chart is meant to placate Conservative supporters upset by the protests and the lawsuit.

Support for the troops is a core value of the party and the growing unrest has been greeted by dismay among the party’s rank and file.

]]>http://www.macleans.ca/news/canada/veterans-affairs-challenged-on-chart-showing-disabled-soldier-payments/feed/2A dozen soldiers walk into an art galleryhttp://www.macleans.ca/culture/a-dozen-soldiers-walk-into-an-art-gallery-2/
http://www.macleans.ca/culture/a-dozen-soldiers-walk-into-an-art-gallery-2/#commentsWed, 19 Feb 2014 14:29:30 +0000macleans.cahttp://www.macleans.ca/?p=509055A Vancouver artist explores the Afghan war, with the help of those who know it best

In a downtown Vancouver art gallery a few weeks ago, half a dozen veterans gathered at a table to make papier mâché. They wore blue plastic gloves, “just like the kind we wore on patrol for searching civilians,” observed one, Stephen Clews, a muscular 28-year-old from Aldergrove, about 50 km east of Vancouver. Clews, like the other men at the Buschlen Mowatt gallery, is a veteran of the Afghan war. He and his friends are crafting 162 papier mâché squares that bear the names of fallen comrades. The panels, which will form the first layer of a mural, are made from the ripped-up pages of old Pams—military training pamphlets containing instructions such as how to engage in hand-to-hand combat or lift a wounded soldier to safety. The project is the brainchild of Foster Eastman, a local businessman, who enjoyed an unlikely debut as an artist last summer with his exhibition inspired by Mao and the Cultural Revolution. His powerful collages, layering “peasant art,” actual pages from the Little Red Book, and superimposed images of Mao, offered potent cultural symbolism and made the show a sleeper hit with local critics.

Now he has moved on to the terrible legacy of the Afghan war. “All the news of the recent veterans’ suicides was so depressing, I felt I had to respond as an artist,” says the 55-year-old. His first public exhibition, last April, at the Gordon Smith gallery, was part of a series on the Maple Leaf, commissioned to different artists. His leaf was a kind of improvised explosive device fashioned from nails and hundreds of ketchup packets—the kind distributed as rations to Canadian troops in Afghanistan. It was part of a series of similarly themed works he took to a blasting site and detonated, with extraordinary results. One tableau features remains of metal and plastic that read like vaporized war ruins.

Eastman had the idea for the mural project over the holidays. A week later, work began with an army of volunteers—veterans, but also friends, family and neighbours. Eastman knows Tim Laidler, head of the Veterans Transition Network (VTN), a groundbreaking program initiated by a UBC professor. So, in addition to raising awareness about the deaths of civilians and troops, the mural is a fundraising effort for VTN, with donors encouraged to “sponsor” a panel for $1,000 each (although donations start at $25).

Other Eastman works will be on display: ghostly silhouettes of Afghan women in burkas cut out of Canadian “guerilla advertising” posters, a series of AK-47s cut from Archie comics—a transformation of familiar objects into sinister instruments that brings the war home in a visceral way. The mural, to be unveiled on April 16, encompasses photographic prints showing Afghan widows in mourning, a funeral procession for a Canadian soldier and a poignant image of a soldier holding a young Afghan boy’s hand, as well as the Pams.

The papier mâché work proves oddly therapeutic for the young men at the gallery, whose experiences still haunt them. “I really thought I was going there to help civilians,” says Dale Hamilton, a 28-year-old stationed for nine months in the village of Alkozai in Kandahar. He does recall some happy moments. “We made friends with some local kids. We made a little roof-side pitch-and-putt and gave them candy every time they caught a ball.” But he also notes Alkozai was the place where, a few months after his tour of duty ended, U.S. Army Staff Sgt. Robert Bales murdered 16 Afghan civilians in a shooting rampage.

“I’ve had to let go of a lot of that,” says Hamilton, a participant, like many here, in the VTN program. The “baggage” includes horror at seeing the mainly Afghan civilians maimed by roadside bombs, and survivor’s guilt. “In the re-enactment work,” he explains, “I had to practise apologizing to my friends who had died.” He mentions one who traded patrols with him and ended up being killed. “Someone acted out the part of my friend and said, ‘It’s not your fault. What happened to me, let it go.’ ”

As for what it will take for these veterans to heal, “It’s like finding a cure for cancer,” says Laidler. “We still need more funding and more research.” Eastman and his friends are doing their part to help, one panel at a time.

The dispute—between veterans, one of the major public sector unions and the federal government—over the planned closure of several Veterans Affairs offices and the future delivery of services to veterans has been building for some time, but now the news networks have video of Veterans Affairs Minister Julian Fantino in a rather contentious meeting with several unimpressed veterans.

Here is what the CBC aired and here is what CTV has shown. And now Thomas Mulcair wants Mr. Fantino to remove himself (or be removed) from cabinet.

Whatever the merits of each side’s argument (and setting aside the issues around the scheduling of this meeting and a debate we might have about what amount and kind of pointing a cabinet minister should have to accept) it’s at least interesting to see a politician captured on film in such a relatively unregulated encounter with the public. I’m reminded of Conservative MP David Wilks’ semi-famous encounter with constituents in May 2012. The most interesting moment of Justin Trudeau’s leadership so far (at least before this morning) might’ve been this exchange with a woman last September.

How often does this even happen any more? Possibly not enough. For four years after the Liberals formed government in 1993, the CBC broadcast an annual town hall meeting with Jean Chretien, during which Canadians could put questions to the Prime Minister. He had a bit of a rough go in 1996 and the exercise was never again repeated, but it’d be lovely to see it brought back.

Update 1:42pm. Mr. Fantino’s office has now sent out a statement from the minister.

“Yesterday, due to Cabinet meeting that ran long, I was very late in meeting a group of Veterans that had come to Ottawa to discuss their concerns. I sincerely apologize for how this was handled. Today, I am reaching out to those Veterans to reiterate that apology personally.

“I have been committed to having an open dialogue with the men and women who served Canada in uniform, but I realize that yesterday’s regrettable delay has brought that into question. Veterans across Canada should know that I remain deeply committed to meeting with them and listening to the issues that matter to them and their families, and to continue to do what’s right to support those who have stood up for Canada. Our country’s Veterans deserve no less.”

]]>http://www.macleans.ca/authors/aaron-wherry/julian-fantino-would-prefer-that-you-refrain-from-pointing-at-him/feed/12Vets angry as federal lawyers argue Ottawa has no social obligation to soldiershttp://www.macleans.ca/general/vets-angry-as-federal-lawyers-argue-ottawa-has-no-social-obligation-to-soldiers/
http://www.macleans.ca/general/vets-angry-as-federal-lawyers-argue-ottawa-has-no-social-obligation-to-soldiers/#commentsTue, 30 Jul 2013 19:36:12 +0000The Canadian Presshttp://www2.macleans.ca/?p=409664At least one veterans group promises to campaign against the Harper Conservatives because of a stand taken by federal lawyers, who argue the country holds no extraordinary social obligation to…

At least one veterans group promises to campaign against the Harper Conservatives because of a stand taken by federal lawyers, who argue the country holds no extraordinary social obligation to ex-soldiers.

The lawyers, fighting a class-action lawsuit in British Columbia, asked a judge to dismiss the court action filed by injured Afghan veterans, saying Ottawa owes them nothing more than what they have already received under its controversial New Veterans Charter.

The stand drew an incendiary reaction from veterans advocates, who warned they are losing patience with the Harper government, which has made supporting the troops one of its political battle cries.

Mike Blais, president of Canadian Veterans Advocacy, told a Parliament Hill news conference that since the First World War, the federal government has recognized it has a “sacred obligation” to veterans — and that notion was abandoned with the adoption of the veterans charter by the Conservatives.

“We are asking the government to stand down on this ridiculous position (and) to accept the obligation that successive generations of Parliament have wilfully embraced,” said Blais, who pointed out veterans of Afghanistan deserve the same commitment as those who fought in the world wars.

“We’re damned determined to ensure (the same) standard of care is provided by this government or we shall work to provide and elect another government that will fulfil its sacred obligation.”

The lawsuit filed last fall by six veterans claims that the new charter, which replaces life-time pensions with workers compensation-style lump sum awards for wounds, violates the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

In all cases, the awards are substantially less than what service members would have received under the old Pension Act system, which was initially set up following the First World War.

Veterans advocates, including Blais, see the new veterans charter as a bottom-line exercise.

“We went to war, signed up to serve this nation, nobody told us we would be abandoned,” he said.

“Nobody told us they were going to change the game in mid-flights and that our government would turn its back on us, and put the budget ahead of their sacred obligation.”

A spokesman for newly appointed veterans minister Julian Fantino said he wasn’t able to comment directly on the court case. But Joshua Zanin noted that more than 190,000 veterans and their families received benefits under the revised charter and the “government has taken important steps to modernize and improve services to veterans.”

Even so, federal lawyers argued that the veterans lawsuit is “abuse of process” that should be thrown out.

“In support of their claim, the representative plaintiffs assert the existence of a ‘social covenant,’ a public law duty, and a fiduciary duty on the part of the federal government,” Jasvinder S. Basran, the regional director general for the federal Justice Department, said in a court application.

The lawsuit invokes the “honour of the Crown,” a concept that has been argued in aboriginal rights claims.

“The defendant submits that none of the claims asserted by the representative plaintiffs constitutes a reasonable claim, that the claims are frivolous or vexatious, and accordingly that they should be struck out in their entirety.”

New Democrat veterans critic Peter Stoffer says the legal implication of claiming the government has no special obligation to veterans is far-reaching and he demanded the Conservatives clarify what it means.

He noted that unlike the previous legislation, the new veterans charter — passed unanimously by all parties in 2005 and enacted by the Conservatives in 2006 — contained no reference to social obligation.

Both Stoffer and Blais do not advocate for a complete return to the old pension system, but rather that veterans be given a choice of how the benefit is paid.

Among the soldiers named in the suit is Maj. Mark Douglas Campbell, a 32-year veteran of the Canadian Forces who served in Cyprus, Bosnia and Afghanistan.

In June 2008, Campbell, of the Edmonton-based Princess Patricia’s Canadian Light Infantry, was struck by an improvised explosive device and Taliban ambush.

He lost both legs above the knee, one testicle, suffered numerous lacerations and a ruptured eardrum. He has since been diagnosed with depressive disorder and post-traumatic stress disorder.

Campbell received a lump-sum payment for pain and suffering of $260,000. He will receive his military pension, with an earnings loss benefit and a permanent impairment allowance but he is entirely unable to work and will suffer a net earnings loss due to his injuries, the lawsuit claims.

Another plaintiff soldier suffered severe injuries to his leg and foot in the blast that killed Canadian journalist Michelle Lang and four soldiers. He was awarded $200,000 in total payments for pain and suffering and post-traumatic stress.

The allegations in the lawsuit have not been proven in court.

The federal government application says policy decisions of the government and legislation passed by Parliament are not subject to review by the courts.

“The basic argument that they’re making is that Parliament can do what it wants,” said Don Sorochan, the soldiers’ lawyer.

He said he receives calls almost daily from soldiers affected by the changes, and thousands ultimately could be involved.

Sorochan, who is handling the case for free, said he doesn’t believe the objective of the legislation was to save money at the expense of injured soldiers, but that’s what has happened.

“When the legislation was brought in it was believed by the politicians involved — and I’ve talked to several of them, in all parties — that they were doing a good thing,” Sorochan said.

“But anybody that can objectively look at what is happening to these men and women who have served us, can’t keep believing that.”

Just before QP this morning, Conservative MP Scott Armstrong explained how the budget should be viewed.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of the veterans and legions across my riding to thank the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance for increasing the funding envelope of the last post fund. The last post fund is the fund we use to show respect to our veteran soldiers, the ones who fought at Juno, Normandy, the ones who fought in the jungles of Burma, the ones who liberated millions of Europeans in World War II, a generation that is coming to the end of their lives. Our government has answered their ask to respect them by increasing the last post fund from $3,600 to help and support their families with the funeral to $7,300 to help their families and support them with the funeral.

We need to show these veterans respect, both in life and in death. Our government has answered that call. I call upon the opposition to stand and vote in favour of this budget. If it votes against budget 2013, it will be voting against every veteran across our country.

Opposition MPs have been pressing for changes to the Last Post Fund and the Royal Canadian Legion has campaigned for improvements. In its response to the budget, the Legion celebrated the increase to the Last Post Fund, but also noted other concerns.

Of course, as a young Reform MP once noted, the trouble with omnibus legislation (of the sort that has been used to implement the budget over the last several years) is that it forces MPs to give a single answer to many different questions. So perhaps Mr. Armstrong will ask the Finance Minister to ensure that the increase in funding for the Last Post Fund is made a separate and distinct bill so as to ensure that no votes are cast against the nation’s veterans.

Liberal MP Sean Casey, NDP MP Peter Stoffer, Defence Minister Peter MacKay and Treasury Board president Tony Clement were involved in a spiriting series of exchanges this afternoon over the treatment of disabled military and RCMP veterans.

OTTAWA – The veterans ombudsman says he’s disappointed with the Harper government’s response to his call to treat ex-soldiers and members of RCMP fairly when they apply for disability benefits.

Guy Parent’s latest report says veterans should not be left at the mercy of government institutions when they submit claims, and the federal government should stop keeping applicants in the dark over the medical records used to decide those claims.

Soon after the report was tabled Monday, Veterans Affairs Minister Steven Blaney responded with a series of changes, including more consultation with applicants whose claims are in jeopardy of being denied.

But Parent, in a blog post Tuesday, said the changes “fall short of ensuring procedural fairness” to veterans.

Under the old system, when a benefits claim is filed, the applicant’s medical records are requested from either the military, the RCMP or Library and Archives Canada.

Federal bureaucrats who retrieve the records are allowed sift through them and pick ones deemed relevant before they are sent to adjudication.

The applicants never see records submitted on their behalf, nor can they challenge them if something is missing.

A spokesman for Blaney, Niklaus Schwenker, said the government launched a comprehensive plan to address the ombudsman’s report, with clear instructions for department officials that requires them to “reach out” to veterans.

“Through this plan, the minister clearly directed that moving forward, disability adjudicators must certify that they have reviewed all documentation submitted to them and must reach out to veterans to ask them to submit any information they have to help render a positive decision,” he said.

But Parent says a telephone call is not an adequate substitute to receiving a copy of the evidence.

“It is difficult to imagine how useful a telephone conversation could be if both parties do not have the same information in front of them,” he wrote.

Blaney proudly boasted in the House of Commons on Monday that 70 per cent of all disability applications are accepted on initial review by his department.

But Parent said that figure includes applications where only a partial disability payment is granted.

The policy of only notifying people who are about to be denied means those who receive partial payments will still be left in the dark by the Harper government.

“Why would an applicant who is informed that he is entitled to only one fifth of a full disability pension or award not be given the opportunity to challenge the evidence available to adjudicators before the decision is made?”

The federal government also plans to help ex-soldiers obtain their own copies of service and health records through formal information applications.

Veterans Affairs will also ask adjudicators to declare they’ve read the complete file, and not just select portions.

OTTAWA – The veterans ombudsman says he’s disappointed with the Harper government’s response to his call to treat ex-soldiers and members of RCMP fairly when they apply for disability benefits.

Guy Parent’s latest report says veterans should not be left at the mercy of government institutions when they submit claims, and the federal government should stop keeping applicants in the dark over the medical records used to decide those claims.

Soon after the report was tabled Monday, Veterans Affairs Minister Steven Blaney responded with a series of changes, including more consultation with applicants whose claims are in jeopardy of being denied.

But Parent, in a blog post Tuesday, said the changes “fall short of ensuring procedural fairness” to veterans.

Under the old system, when a benefits claim is filed the applicant’s medical records are requested from either the military, the RCMP or Library and Archives Canada.

Federal bureaucrats who retrieve the records are allowed sift through them and pick ones deemed relevant before they are sent to adjudication.

The applicants never see records submitted on their behalf, nor can they challenge them if something is missing.

Among other things, the minister promised veterans that if an adjudicator is about to deny an application, the individual will be contacted ahead of time and offered a chance to submit more information.

Parent says a telephone call is not an adequate substitute to receiving a copy of the evidence.

“It is difficult to imagine how useful a telephone conversation could be if both parties do not have the same information in front of them,” he wrote.

Blaney proudly boasted in the House of Commons on Monday that 70 per cent of all disability applications are accepted on initial review by his department.

But Parent said that figure includes applications where only a partial disability payment is granted.

The policy of only notifying people who are about to be denied means those who receive partial payments will still be left in the dark by the Harper government.

“Why would an applicant who is informed that he is entitled to only one fifth of a full disability pension or award not be given the opportunity to challenge the evidence available to adjudicators before the decision is made?”

The federal government also plans to help ex-soldiers obtain their own copies of service and health records through formal information applications.

Veterans Affairs will also ask adjudicators to declare they’ve read the complete file, and not just select portions.

]]>http://www.macleans.ca/general/tory-changes-to-veterans-disability-claims-fall-short-ombudsman/feed/0Impoverished soldiers deserve more dignified burials: Royal Canadian Legionhttp://www.macleans.ca/general/impoverished-soldiers-deserve-more-dignified-burials-royal-canadian-legion/
http://www.macleans.ca/general/impoverished-soldiers-deserve-more-dignified-burials-royal-canadian-legion/#commentsThu, 31 Jan 2013 16:06:05 +0000The Canadian Presshttp://www2.macleans.ca/?p=345176OTTAWA – The Royal Canadian Legion is launching a national letter-writing campaign aimed at forcing the Conservative government to cover the full cost of burying impoverished soldiers.
Dominion president Gordon…

OTTAWA – The Royal Canadian Legion is launching a national letter-writing campaign aimed at forcing the Conservative government to cover the full cost of burying impoverished soldiers.

Dominion president Gordon Moore is holding a news conference today in Elmira, Ont., to outline the campaign.

Moore will be joined by the executive director of the Last Post Fund, the independent agency that administers the federal government’s funeral and burial program for Veterans Affairs Canada.

Last fall, The Canadian Press reported the fund had rejected 20,147 applications submitted by the families of poor soldiers who passed away — roughly two-thirds of the total number of pleas it had received since 2006.

Moore, who has been fighting since 2008 to have the criteria updated, says he’s dismayed at the government’s “inaction.”

The legion is calling on its 330,000 members across Canada, along with the general public, to write members of Parliament to demand the funeral stipend be raised from the current $3,600 per soldier.

“I ask, what is the Canadian government waiting for?” Moore said in an interview.

A spokesman for Veterans Affairs Minister Steven Blaney said the government is already being generous.

“While all of our programs are under constant review as we look for ways to improve them through a challenging fiscal climate, Canada’s funeral and burial program is one of the most comprehensive among allied nations and is the only program to cover full burial costs,” said Niklaus Schwenker.

Yet, the Legion, an advocacy group formed in the aftermath of the First World War, says the government is being “misleading.”

Currently, the surviving families of veterans are subjected to a means test, where they are eligible for reimbursement if their income falls below $12,010 per year. The threshold used to be $24,000, but was cut by Jean Chretien’s Liberal government as part of its second deficit-fighting budget.

The program is also restricted to those who served in the Second World War and Korea, as well as soldiers who collected a veterans disability pension.

Moore said the legion wants that eligibility criteria updated, noting that the exemption line “is considerably less than the poverty level and has not been adjusted since 1995.”

When complaints about the fund surfaced last November, the Harper government insisted it was contributing more than $3,600 to those that did qualify, and in fact some of the payments went as high as $10,000.

In order to come up with that figure, Moore said the government is combining two potential benefits in order to confuse the issue.

“This is misleading veterans and their families and the Canadian public,” he said. “This is misleading and deceptive.”

Moore said $3,600 does not begin to cover the costs for a simple and dignified funeral, which typically includes a funeral service director, a casket or urn, and grave site services.

Moore noted the federal government does pay separately for the “cheapest plot,” which is defined as the “lowest cost earth burial” in the area where the veteran has died.

Overhauling eligibility and increasing the funeral exemption could cost between $5 million and $7 million annually, but Moore says veterans officials have privately pegged the full cost at $14 million.

“I have no idea where they got that figure,” he said.

Through Veterans Affairs, the Conservatives have poured millions of dollars into the restoration of local war monuments — photo-op friendly projects that are unveiled by local MPs — in the last two federal budgets.

]]>http://www.macleans.ca/general/impoverished-soldiers-deserve-more-dignified-burials-royal-canadian-legion/feed/2The Last Post Fund and caring for veteranshttp://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/the-last-post-fund-and-caring-for-veterans/
http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/the-last-post-fund-and-caring-for-veterans/#commentsMon, 12 Nov 2012 13:27:00 +0000Aaron Wherryhttp://www2.macleans.ca/?p=313850Stephen Harper declined to directly address the matter of the Last Post Fund this weekend.
“Let me just say that government of Canada puts as you know a very high …

“Let me just say that government of Canada puts as you know a very high priority on care for our veterans. This government has made enormous, billions of dollars worth of investments in programs particularly for the most needy veterans,” Harper told reporters at a news conference with the Philippine president Benigno Aquino.

“Obviously those programs are under constant review and we will continue to assess their suitability going forward.”

Yesterday on West Block, Tom Clark asked Veterans Affairs Minister Steven Blaney about the treatment of veterans, including the Last Post Fund. Here’s the transcript.

Tom Clark: Well let’s talk about the people that are being honoured today and you know I go to the comments of the former Chief of the Defence Staff, General Walt Natynczyk, and the Veterans Ombudsman and the Auditor General of Canada have all said the same thing, that we are not doing enough when it comes to mental health for our veterans. Why aren’t we?

Steven Blaney: Well we sure are doing and we can always do more. And that’s why I’m very proud today to stand by our Canadian Armed Forces and Minister MacKay, who have done tremendous [outreach] in reaching out to our soldiers who need it the most, especially those returning from Afghanistan and peacekeeping mission by having…

Tom Clark: But Minister, these are the very people though that the former Chief of the Defence Staff, the Auditor General and the Veterans Ombudsman say are not getting the help that they need.

Steven Blaney: Well they do get a lot of help through our Operational Stress Injury clinics. Did you know, that we have at this very moment, injured soldiers who have been through post traumatic stress, who are working within the Canadian Armed Forces and Veterans Affairs Canada? And they are able to deal with soldiers to soldiers and say, I can help you, I know where you’ve been through, let’s work it out together and see how can our government, our department, and our specialists… You know we’ve just hired more doctors, more nurses, and more psychiatrists so we can get some help to those that need it the most, whether physically or mentally.

Tom Clark: So when it comes to burial for veterans who have fallen on hard times, 67.4 percent of the applicants for the money for burials are turned down. Why is it that somebody who fought for this country has to fight for a decent burial?

Steven Blaney: Well this program is, the Funeral and Burial program, is for our injured veterans in need. This is an important program because our veterans deserve to be well treated and at their very last day they deserve to be buried properly…

Tom Clark: Are they getting enough money?

Steven Blaney: Since they put their life at risk…

Tom Clark: Right but 67 percent are being rejected in terms of coming (Blaney – yes) up for money. The cap has not been raised for 10 years (Blaney – it’s true) on this program.

Steven Blaney: Well you know we certainly can work every day to improve the quality of the service we are providing to veterans and that’s why with this particular program, more than 10,000 veterans have benefited from it since 2006, and when we include the funeral and the burial assistance it can go up to twice or three times as much as what you’ve just referred to. But what is most important is every day we need to strive and as a government and as a country to improve the quality of services we are delivering to our veterans and that’s why we are investing large amounts, but we are investing ourselves in what we call the New Veterans Charter.

Tom Clark: You were cutting your budget by $36 million dollars by 2014, are you going to put any more money into the funeral program? Are you going to put any more money into health care, mental health care as has been called for by some of the top people in the military? Are you going to basically say, anybody who fought for this country does not have to fight at the end of their lives for decent burial, decent care, a roof over their heads or a job?

Steven Blaney: Tom, every week, every month, every day, we are improving the service to our veterans. And we are investing more than $3 billion dollars in our veterans’ health and we are also doing one thing; we are into cutting into red tape. And who has asked me for that, veterans. They say Steven, we are fed up by filling those forms, like what we call… this is a program… you would get fed up to send me a bill every time you have to take care to wash your window or do some house cleaning in your house. This is over now. We have moved to upfront payments. We have eliminated millions of transactions; routine administrative tasks, wait that’s over. And now our veterans get upfront payment. Yesterday a veteran came to see me and say Steven; this is the right way to go. Cut the red tape and maintain and improve the benefits. You know what, that’s exactly what we are doing and we will strive to do because that’s what they deserve.

]]>http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/the-last-post-fund-and-caring-for-veterans/feed/6‘Our prime minister and his government don’t see it as a priority’http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/our-prime-minister-and-his-government-dont-see-it-as-a-priority/
http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/our-prime-minister-and-his-government-dont-see-it-as-a-priority/#commentsMon, 05 Nov 2012 16:11:44 +0000Aaron Wherryhttp://www2.macleans.ca/?p=311341A fund created to help with the funeral costs of veterans has been rejecting two-thirds of applicants and the executive director blames the Harper government.
Jean-Pierre Goyer says they have …

A fund created to help with the funeral costs of veterans has been rejecting two-thirds of applicants and the executive director blames the Harper government.

Jean-Pierre Goyer says they have been petitioning Stephen Harper’s Conservative government to not only overhaul the rules, but to increase the stipend given to those who do qualify for assistance. “Our prime minister and his government don’t see it as a priority and it hasn’t made the list for the last budget,” said Goyer. “We came close last budget, I’m told, and our improvements were taken off the list at almost the last minute. We hope in the next federal budget we can see this through.” “Veterans affairs and their minister, Steven Blaney, they are committed to see this change through. I would tell, and you can quote me on that, the problem is with the government of Canada.”

]]>http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/our-prime-minister-and-his-government-dont-see-it-as-a-priority/feed/23The auditor general on cyber security, veterans and national financehttp://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/the-auditor-general-on-cyber-security-veterans-and-national-finance/
http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/the-auditor-general-on-cyber-security-veterans-and-national-finance/#commentsTue, 23 Oct 2012 15:32:18 +0000Aaron Wherryhttp://www2.macleans.ca/?p=306210"Canadians do not have all the relevant information to understand the long-term impact of budgets"

While Finance Canada prepared a draft report in 2007 on the long-term fiscal sustainability analyses that the government committed to issuing that year, the analyses were not published; nor has any report on long-term fiscal sustainability been published since then. While long-term fiscal sustainability analyses have been regularly prepared since 2010, they have not been made public. This lack of reporting means that parliamentarians and Canadians do not have all the relevant information to understand the long-term impact of budgets on the federal, provincial, and territorial governments in order to support public debate and to hold the government to account. Many of the countries that are members of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) already publish reports on their long-term fiscal positions.

Students at Memorial University are helping Canadian Forces members transition to civilian life by training them to run their own businesses. Nineteen veterans and soon-to-be vets, including some discharged for injuries, participated in this week’s “entrepreneurial bootcamp” in St. John’s. Business owners, faculty and students trained them in everything from marketing to social media. The Department of National Defense worked with the local chapter of Students in Free Enterprise to develop the Based in Business program, which is offering the training with support from Canadian Youth Business Foundation and Prince’s Charities Canada. For more, see The Telegram.

]]>http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/veterans-affairs-wont-be-exempt/feed/5To cut or not to cut Veterans Affairshttp://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/to-cut-or-not-to-cut-veterans-affairs/
http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/to-cut-or-not-to-cut-veterans-affairs/#commentsTue, 06 Mar 2012 16:55:52 +0000Aaron Wherryhttp://www2.macleans.ca/?p=243939The House will vote this evening on an NDP motion to exempt Veterans Affairs from budget cuts.
That, in the opinion of the House, the government should: (a) honour the …

The House will vote this evening on an NDP motion to exempt Veterans Affairs from budget cuts.

That, in the opinion of the House, the government should: (a) honour the service of Canadian military and RCMP veterans and their families by committing to not cut Veterans Affairs Canada in the upcoming budget; and (b) provide programs and services to all military and RCMP veterans and their families in a timely and comprehensive manner.

Update 1:41pm. The government side has proposed amending the motion so that it reads as follows:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should: a) honour the service of Canadian military and RCMP veterans and their families by committing to maintain Veterans’ benefit and b) provide programs and services to all military and RCMP veterans and their families in a timely and comprehensive manner.

]]>http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/to-cut-or-not-to-cut-veterans-affairs/feed/13Supporting the veteranshttp://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/supporting-the-veterans/
http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/supporting-the-veterans/#commentsFri, 11 Nov 2011 18:12:08 +0000Aaron Wherryhttp://www2.macleans.ca/?p=225014The former veterans ombudsman is scathing in his criticism of Veterans Affairs and veterans advocates are worried about cuts. The current ombudsman suggests the department should be exempt from budget…

The former veterans ombudsman is scathing in his criticism of Veterans Affairs and veterans advocates are worried about cuts. The current ombudsman suggests the department should be exempt from budget cuts.

“If the government ensures us that they will not achieve their economies on the back of veterans, then that means that the 5 or 10 per cent will have to come from the other portion of the budget, which is the salary of people and operations expenses,” Mr. Parent said in a telephone interview.

“Any reduction in people would certainly have a negative impact on accessing programs and administering programs, so we are concerned.”

]]>http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/supporting-the-veterans/feed/1‘This solemn day of reflection’http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/this-solemn-day-of-reflection/
http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/this-solemn-day-of-reflection/#commentsFri, 11 Nov 2011 15:15:39 +0000Aaron Wherryhttp://www2.macleans.ca/?p=224914Liberal leader Bob Rae’s statement on the occasion of Remembrance Day.
Today we honour those Canadian veterans who have laid down their lives as a matter of duty and we …

]]>http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/this-solemn-day-of-reflection/feed/0‘Remembering is not enough’http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/remembering-is-not-enough/
http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/remembering-is-not-enough/#commentsFri, 11 Nov 2011 14:45:20 +0000Aaron Wherryhttp://www2.macleans.ca/?p=224920The leader of the official opposition’s statement on Remembrance Day.
Today, tomorrow and all year long, we have a duty to salute the fallen by standing up for the living—through …

Today, tomorrow and all year long, we have a duty to salute the fallen by standing up for the living—through proper home care, fair pensions without clawbacks and support that heals the terrible wounds of war.

So let us ensure that every veteran is taken care of—in service and in retirement. Let us promote the values of peace and justice, for which our soldiers have given so much. And let us continue the fight to make our country, and our world, a better place for future generations.

]]>http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/remembering-is-not-enough/feed/0‘Their duty to remember’http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/their-duty-to-remember/
http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/their-duty-to-remember/#commentsFri, 11 Nov 2011 14:00:42 +0000Aaron Wherryhttp://www2.macleans.ca/?p=224911The Governor General’s message on the occasion of Remembrance Day.
The terrible price that they paid during the conflicts that shaped our era reflects the sad reality of times of …

The terrible price that they paid during the conflicts that shaped our era reflects the sad reality of times of war, but it also speaks to the tremendous courage and unwavering determination needed to successfully complete their missions. We will never forget the men and women who, in spite of the danger and perils, gave their all to protect the ideals of justice and freedom. They deserve our gratitude and utmost respect.

]]>http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/their-duty-to-remember/feed/0‘Lest we forget’http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/lest-we-forget-2/
http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/lest-we-forget-2/#commentsFri, 11 Nov 2011 13:30:25 +0000Aaron Wherryhttp://www2.macleans.ca/?p=224909The Prime Minister’s statement on the occasion of Remembrance Day.
The values our veterans held dear decades ago are still very much alive today in those who continue to serve …

]]>http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/lest-we-forget-2/feed/3The quiet cutshttp://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/the-quiet-cuts-8/
http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/the-quiet-cuts-8/#commentsFri, 14 Oct 2011 22:35:20 +0000Aaron Wherryhttp://www2.macleans.ca/?p=220317Veterans Affairs is planning to trim its budget by $226 million.
Environment Canada has cancelled a $547,000 per year agreement with the Canadian Environmental Network.
And a subscription to a…

]]>http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/the-quiet-cuts-8/feed/15Policy alerthttp://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/policy-alert-10/
http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/policy-alert-10/#commentsMon, 04 Apr 2011 18:18:17 +0000Aaron Wherryhttp://www2.macleans.ca/?p=181427Michael Ignatieff promises education for veterans.
Canadian soldiers can expect four years of government-paid education or technical training after they leave the military under a Liberal government, Liberal Leader Michael …

Canadian soldiers can expect four years of government-paid education or technical training after they leave the military under a Liberal government, Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff said Monday … The program would cost about $60 million a year going forward, with retroactivity for soldiers who served in Afghanistan.

]]>http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/policy-alert-10/feed/28What it sounds likehttp://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/what-it-sounds-like-2/
http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/what-it-sounds-like-2/#commentsSat, 02 Apr 2011 17:50:47 +0000Aaron Wherryhttp://www2.macleans.ca/?p=181163Below the audio of the NDP rally inside the bingo hall of the Dartmouth Sportplex here in Nova Scotia this afternoon. Jack Layton was preceded to the platform by Robert…

Below the audio of the NDP rally inside the bingo hall of the Dartmouth Sportplex here in Nova Scotia this afternoon. Jack Layton was preceded to the platform by Robert Chisholm, the NDP candidate for Dartmouth-Cole Harbour, and Pat Stogran, the former veterans ombudsman.

Auditor General Sheila Fraser will look into the New Veterans Charter and the lump-sum disability payments that mean less money for veterans but savings of up to $40 million dollars a year for the government. Liberal Senator Percy Downe had pressed the office for an audit, saying, “I’m concerned this became a cost-saving exercise rather than a service to veterans.” Fraser says her office will have a report ready by the fall of 2012. The audit comes after the Conservative government has faced mounting criticism that they are shortchanging veterans benefits.

MacKay’s new romance?
There was much buzz about Defence Minister Peter MacKay’s date for the True Patriot Love fundraiser for Canadian troops held in Toronto. MacKay arrived at the dinner with former Miss World Canada Nazanin Afshin-Jam. Rumours of a romance have been reported. The interesting twist is that back in 2006, Afshin-Jam was on the Hill talking to MPs and fighting to save the life of another Iranian who shares her first name, Nazanin Fatehi. Fatehi stabbed one of the men who attempted to rape her and was sentenced to hang. (She was eventually released.) One of the MPs who helped Afshin-Jam at her Ottawa press conference was former Liberal MP (and former MacKay girlfriend) Belinda Stronach.

Coffee, compost and the PMO
The closest coffee place to the PMO, which is in the Langevin Block, used to be a Tim Hortons. A while back it was replaced with a Bridgehead café, known for its fair trade and organic coffees. Not only does Bridgehead have recycling bins, it has compost bins as well. Bridgehead staff say they see a lot of PMO staffers come in and also note that NDP Leader Jack Layton gets his hot beverages there too. When PM spokesperson Dimitri Soudas was spotted with a Bridgehead hot apple cider, he said his choice of coffee purveyor was based purely on convenience and was in no way a political statement.

James Moore’s father-son trips
The Historica-Dominion Institute recently launched We Were Freedom: Canadian Stories of the Second World War, veterans’ stories collected in book form as part of the institute’s Canadian oral history project. Heritage Minister James Moore picked up two copies, one for himself, the other for his father. Both men are big history buffs, especially when it comes to the First and Second World Wars. The two have taken many trips together visiting sites relevant to Canada’s role in the wars, and Moore has made a point of visiting, both by himself and with his father, Canadian cemeteries worldwide connected to the two world wars. The sites, he notes, are listed on the Veterans Affairs website.

The delinquent former MP
The Canadian Association of Former Parliamentarians held its annual fundraising dinner in the ballroom of the Fairmont Château Laurier. The guest speaker was John Furlong, CEO of the Vancouver Organizing Committee for the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games. He was presented with the Olympic flag that flew on Parliament Hill during the Games. Former Conservative MP Monte Solberg told Capital Diary he worked hard to sell tickets for the event even though he’s not actually a member of the association. Solberg confessed he has not yet paid his dues: “I’m a delinquent former parliamentarian.”

The singing (Oklahoma!) MP
London, Ont., Liberal MP Glen Pearson held his annual fundraiser in his riding for the NGO Canadian Aid For Southern Sudan and raised over $11,000. Liberal Sen. Roméo Dallaire was the guest speaker. In the past, money from the event has been used to help build a primary school. Pearson noted that child soldiers were hired to build the school as a way to help rehabilitate them. At the event, local London performer Denise Pelley sang Bring Him Home from Les Misérables, while Pearson sang a song from the film The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian. Pearson, who hasn’t sung in over 20 years, says Dallaire’s mouth dropped open. But Pearson has a singing past, including a father who was a big band drummer. When the MP was on the high school football team in Calgary, his teammates dared him to try out for the high school musical, which that year was Oklahoma!. He got the lead and then proceeded to star in his school’s other plays such as South Pacific, The Mikado and My Fair Lady.

]]>http://www.macleans.ca/general/mitchel-raphael-on-belinda/feed/16Supporting the troopshttp://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/supporting-the-troops/
http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/supporting-the-troops/#commentsWed, 22 Sep 2010 14:14:16 +0000Aaron Wherryhttp://www2.macleans.ca/?p=148601CP reports on what seems a particularly dark turn in the discussion about how we care for veterans of armed conflict.
Confidential medical and financial information belonging to an outspoken …

CP reports on what seems a particularly dark turn in the discussion about how we care for veterans of armed conflict.

Confidential medical and financial information belonging to an outspoken critic of Veterans Affairs, including part of a psychiatrist’s report, found its way into the briefing notes of a cabinet minister.

Highly personal information about Sean Bruyea was contained in a 13-page briefing note prepared by bureaucrats in 2006 for then minister Greg Thompson, a copy of which was obtained by The Canadian Press. The note, with two annexes of detailed information, laid out in detail Bruyea’s medical and psychological condition.

Colonel Pat Stogran sat in a suit and tie at the front of the National Press Gallery, somewhat hunched over his notes, his hands placed on the table in front of him. Every so often, as he read in precisely the sort of impatient, unapologetic, grinding tone one would expect from a colonel, he would glance up from beneath an impressive brow.

To his immediate left sat a man in a wheelchair, a former member of the Canadian Forces now suffering from ALS. To Col. Stogran’s far right and far left sat men with medals pinned just below the right shoulders of their suit jackets. A half dozen other veterans sat in the gallery.

Col. Stogran explained first what he was not here to talk about—the government’s decision not to renew his term as veterans ombudsman. He has held the title since November 2007 and he will relinquish his post in three months.

“What I am here to do,” he said, “is to expose to Canadians what I perceive as a system that for a long time has denied veterans not just what they deserve, but what they earned with their blood and sacrifice.”

If he is to leave his post, he seems intent on doing so unquietly. Indeed, deviating from his initial statement, he speculated that perhaps he had surprised the government that appointed him. That he had been too outspoken, too aggressive. If so, he seemed unrepentant, perhaps even emboldened.

“It is beyond my comprehension how the system could knowingly deny so many of our veterans the services and benefits that the people and the government of Canada recognized a long, long time ago as being their obligation to provide.”

This was merely the preamble.

Col. Stogran pledged here and now to spend the last three months of his term explaining to Canadians “how badly” veterans and their families are being treated. Then, looking up, he raised his voice and lifted his right hand to chop it at the audience. “To all Canadians, these are your sons and your daughters,” he said. “They’re your brothers and sisters. The time is now to do something about it. Make sure this government understands that this must stop.”

He ceded the microphone then to the men at his sides, each of whom testified to some failure or another of the system—tales of bureaucracy, claims of injustice. The tone was at turns angry and frustrated and demanding and pleading and discomfiting. All of it ultimately coming back, implicitly or explicitly, to the three words that have so often been mouthed these last ten years: support the troops.

The term is by now nearly cliche, tossed off reflexively and lightly like a “god bless” after a sneeze. The Canadian soldier is regularly invoked here to proclaim one’s patriotism, defame one’s opponent, avoid uncomfortable questions, and defend debatable actions. But even if the three-word phrase already seems rendered meaningless by abuse, here it was directly challenged. Here the comforting platitude was met with uncomfortable claims.

When it was his turn, the man to Col. Stogran’s left apologized for his laboured speech, the ALS he suffers from—attributable, he says, to inoculations he received while serving in the first Gulf War—apparently makes it hard to breathe and speak at the same time. “My advice to the ministry is if you’re not willing to stand behind the troops, feel free to stand in front of them,” he said.

And even if this too was a cliche, here it seemed crushing.

Few escaped blame for the neglect, for the care not received and the toll untended. The press was beseeched to ask questions, the public was begged to pay attention, the bureaucrats were blamed, the politicians were told to honour their words. The failure was depicted as massive. “The system” was invoked and lamented again and again and again. The stories were myriad and complicated and the discussion often unwieldy. The point seemed to be this: whatever we say as a country that we feel for our soldiers, we do not demonstrate it when most required.

“We line that Highway of Heroes to respect those who have fallen,” said the man to Col. Stogran’s far right. “Let’s start lining that highway for the veterans that come back that are sitting up.”

“If you detect a bit of frustration up here,” Col. Stogran said. “Welcome to my world.”

Indeed, now the colonel vented too, no longer hunched and steady, but sitting upright and lecturing.

“I could go on for hours,” he said when he finally neared a conclusion.

Reporters’ questions were met with only more lamentations. Eventually, someone asked the colonel if he was disappointed in particular with the Prime Minister. Here, Col. Stogran directed reporters to a Canadian Alliance flyer included in the package of documents handed out before the news conference, which featured, he said, a picture of him in the lower left hand corner. Atop the flyer, beside a picture of Stephen Harper, are two sentences. “When we need you, you are always there. Now it’s our turn to defend you.”

Col. Stogran spoke of himself as “window-dressing” and then proceeded once more to lament for the bureaucracy and the workings of government.

Specific questions need be asked, and specific answers given, about that system. But the fight now would seem to be one of words versus deeds, easy slogans versus uncomfortable realities and the very real business of running a country.

]]>http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/the-commons-supporting-the-troops/feed/0Signs of life for Michael Ignatieffhttp://www.macleans.ca/authors/paul-wells/signs-of-life-for-michael-ignatieff/
http://www.macleans.ca/authors/paul-wells/signs-of-life-for-michael-ignatieff/#commentsFri, 26 Feb 2010 14:00:39 +0000Paul Wellshttp://www2.macleans.ca/?p=111230Prorogation allowed Ignatieff to see through the fog of his foibles and find his vision

So where were we? Ah yes. “It being 8:03 p.m.,” acting speaker Barry Devolin told the Commons on Dec. 10, “pursuant to an order made earlier today, the House stands adjourned until Monday, Jan. 25, 2010, at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Orders 28(2) and 24(1).

Devolin believed that to be true when he spoke. But 20 days later the Governor General prorogued the second session of the 40th Parliament, so your MPs are going to try it all over again when they return for the third session on March 3.

A lot has happened since then. It’s been a while since I threw a bunch of polling numbers at you, so maybe you’ll indulge me today. Before Christmas I interviewed one of Michael Ignatieff’s new helpers who had moved into the Office of the Leader of the Opposition along with the Liberal boss’s new chief of staff, Peter Donolo. This person said the Liberals’ immediate goal was to move to within a point or two of the Conservatives by spring. I nodded politely. Good luck with that.

The then-latest Ekos poll showed the Liberals 9.2 points behind the Conservatives. As I write this, the latest Ekos shows that lead has shrunk to 1.2 points. Asked whether the Harper government is on the right track, Canadians now respond “no” by 48 per cent to 41 per cent. In December they were saying “yes” by 45 per cent to 44.

This turnaround is entirely due to Michael Ignatieff’s bold and inspiring leadership. Just kidding. No, the news from that other popular Ottawa pollster, Nik Nanos, is less than encouraging for the Liberal leader: while Harper lost 2.8 points as “best Prime Minister” from November to February, falling to 32 per cent, Ignatieff fell 1.6 points in the same period to a dismal 16.1. That’s now fully two points behind the NDP’s Jack Layton.

And yet. Unappreciated and, one suspects, unnoticed by most Canadians, the Liberal leader has begun to move smartly to make himself and his party more relevant and more responsive to Canadian voters. Ignatieff spent 2009 looking rattled, uncertain, by turns timid and reckless. His recent behaviour suggests he surrounded himself well when he reached out to Donolo and crew last October.

Don’t take any of this as an endorsement of Ignatieff or a prediction of success for him. This corner’s crystal ball remains prorogued. But it is beginning to look as though the Conservatives can no longer depend on Ignatieff to do quite so much of their work for them.

First came the Liberal response to the prorogation itself. At first they seemed caught flat-footed by Harper’s decision. Protest came from outside Parliament and outside institutional politics, with a Facebook group and some modestly successful street protests leading the way. But the Liberals did respond, beginning in late January, with a series of round-table discussions on Parliament Hill on issues like jobs, veterans and health care. Under the rubric “Liberals Are Working,” they allowed Liberal MPs to catch up, for real, on some complex issues, and to show the country footage of themselves with brows furrowed, neckties loosened, hard at work.

Then, twice in February, Ignatieff took the initiative. Not with the sort of brinkmanship that was his predecessor Stéphane Dion’s stock in trade (the coalition, the Green Shift) or that used to be his own (last September’s “your time is up” attempt to force an election), but with a couple of modest, pragmatic forward steps.

First Ignatieff wrote to Harper with an agenda for the new parliamentary session. The seven-page letter contained proposals under 12 subject headings, including job creation, climate change, pension reform and support for veterans. This wasn’t an election manifesto, and Ignatieff was quick to say it wasn’t an ultimatum either. The Liberals are in no mood to force an election if Harper rejects any of their to-do list. Probably he’ll reject some of it and poach the rest for himself. That’s the life of an opposition leader. But at least it will be harder now to say Ignatieff has no ideas and nothing to propose.

Ignatieff’s next move came four days later, after Lucien Bouchard told a Montreal conference he didn’t expect Quebec to secede in his lifetime. This prompted an open letter to Quebecers over Ignatieff’s signature. “Mr. Bouchard had the courage to say what many have been thinking deep down. Instead of passively waiting for a so-called ‘historic night,’ it is crucial that Quebecers actively participate in the changes happening within Canada,” Ignatieff wrote. “They must get involved in shaping the Canada of tomorrow.”

The Harper Conservatives earned themselves an audience with Quebecers when Harper delivered a major, substantive speech in Laval on Dec. 18, 2005. I waited for Stéphane Dion to do something similar and was amazed when he never did. Ignatieff’s letter is thin. He wants Canada to be “the best educated country in the world,” “the most educated,” and “the most energy efficient.” Details will come after his “thinkers’ conference” in Montreal in March, an event that holds both promise and danger for the Liberals.

None of this is magic and, again, most of it appears to have escaped Canadians’ attention. Ignatieff spent a year frittering away Canadians’ benefit of the doubt. He can’t be sure he will win it back. But he did better work during this forced break than at any time since he became leader.

]]>http://www.macleans.ca/authors/paul-wells/signs-of-life-for-michael-ignatieff/feed/116‘Should you be interested in making our minority Parliament work’http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/should-you-be-interested-in-making-our-minority-parliament-work/
http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/should-you-be-interested-in-making-our-minority-parliament-work/#commentsMon, 15 Feb 2010 20:51:47 +0000Aaron Wherryhttp://www2.macleans.ca/?p=107675Apparently in response to a request from the Prime Minister, Michael Ignatieff writes to inform Mr. Harper of all the issues the Liberals would be keen to work on when…

Apparently in response to a request from the Prime Minister, Michael Ignatieff writes to inform Mr. Harper of all the issues the Liberals would be keen to work on when Parliament resumes, including cap-and-trade, pension reform, pay equity, government oversight, mental health, maternal health, veterans, prorogation and Afghan detainees.

The Scene. He opened with pleasantries—”Happy New Year,” he said—and then a joke.

“I’ve hope you’ve all had a good rest. Time with your families,” Michael Ignatieff said, surveying the cluster of reporters in front of him. “Now your family’s thrown you out and told you to get back to work? Same here.”

Aside from a working crew tearing up the front steps to Centre Block—access to our democracy, quite literally, being demolished!—Parliament Hill was quiet and dark, security guards standing around without much to mind. Mr. Ignatieff stood at a lectern in the foyer, behind him the closed doors of the Commons, behind them a group of university students participating in a mock Parliament—the closest the chamber will get to functioning democracy for some weeks yet.

Mr. Ignatieff proceeded with his prepared remarks.

“Mr. Harper prorogued Parliament, shut Parliament down on New Year’s Eve, when he thought no one was looking,” he reviewed. “He thought Canadians didn’t care. And it turns out they do care … Canadians are not as cynical as he thought.”

So it is that our cynicism apparently has its limits. Or perhaps it is merely that some don’t appreciate having their cynicism so unashamedly confirmed. Either way, here we are, openly and heatedly discussing the parameters of Parliamentary democracy, tens of thousands of Canadians signing up for a Facebook group that trumpets the word “proroguing.”

“We’re listening,” the Liberal leader continued. “And we’re going to be going back to work.”

Mr. Ignatieff proceeded to explain what this work would entail. First, a speaking and listening tour of universities. Upon the return of Liberal MPs and senators, as previously scheduled, to Ottawa on January 25, there would be “public hearings” and “public discussions” and “public policy forums,” not to mention “consultations on the economy” and “public consultations on governance,” as well as some “looking at the environment.”

With all of that stated, the first question seemed obvious: So, er, when are we going to have an election?

Actually, to be fair, the first of the reporters’ queries was much more artfully worded. “Do you think he’s gone too far”—he being, in this case, Mr. Harper—”and do you think it’s time to bring him down when you get a chance?”

“Look, what we think about this is, we want to get the other guys back to work,” Mr. Ignatieff managed. “That’s the key thing. The reality is, Mr. Harper always goes too far and then Canadians have to call him back.”

In a red tie and navy blue suit, Mr. Ignatieff continued to stress all of the matters with which we should be dealing and all of the ways in which the Liberals would be attempting to do so.

“We’re not just showing up for a photo op,” he said. “We’re showing up to go to work. That’s the point.”

And if the government will not similarly govern, the opposition will apparently study said governance.

“Every time this government faces an institutional challenge from some other part of the institutions that keep us free,” Mr. Ignatieff explained, apparently struggling to find the words to explain such outrageousness, “they fire back. We think this is a crazy way to run a democracy.”

So there.

And yet, some itch seemed left unscratched. Some insatiable hungerunsatiated. Indeed, as we think now of all that we may be forced to do without these next two months, spare a moment to consider the neediest: the poor press gallery member whose only source of sustenance is fresh reason for election speculation.

“What you’re saying,” one reporter interjected after Mr. Ignatieff had spoken for sometime, “is he can push you around and get away with it.”

“I’m astonished,” Mr. Ignatieff exclaimed, accurately describing the look on his own face.

“Why?” the reporter asked.

“We are coming back to do our job,” Mr. Ignatieff explained.

“I know, but there’s no threat of an election,” the reporter came back. “You’re not saying like you did in September, ‘your time is up,’ you’re just saying, ‘we’re having a big gabfest here and come back when you feel like it.’ ”

“Gabfest,” Mr. Ignatieff grumbled sarcastically. “Gabfest.”

“I’m just saying, where’s the threat?” the reporter begged. “Where’s the muscle?”

The Liberal leader resisted the urge here to remove his shirt and challenge the Prime Minister to a pose down.

Astonishment had by now turned to incredulousness, and so the words spilled forth, burying the question under syllables.

“I have done this job for awhile and I’ve learned, I’ve got a very clear message from Canadians: Do your darn job,” he said. “Lower the volume. Do what you’re elected to do. That’s what I’m going to be doing in January and February. And it’ll be no gabfest. Let me tell you, this will be serious public policy. This will help Canadians to face the issues. We’ve had no national discussion about the environment. We’ve had no national discussion about the detainee issue and what we do in Afghanistan. We’ve had no national debate about what we do about veterans. We’ve got people coming, wounded, with PTSD, people who have given us everything and we haven’t had a public discussion about that. This is what Parliament is there for. That’s the kind of work we’re going to be doing.”

If politicians are compelled now to so justify their existences, these months without Parliament may yet prove fruitful.

After Question Period yesterday, the House paused to mark Remembrance Day. Fine contributions from Greg Thompson, Rob Oliphant, Guy Andre and Peter Stoffer (shortly before he would be deemed a “faker” by the honourable senator on national television) can be read here.

Dubbed “Project Hero,” participating schools are offering students four years of paid tuition, and in some cases are offering free residence for up to two years.

“I think that we’ll probably get something finalized one way or another in the next short while,” says Barb Pollock, vice-president external relations at U Regina. “We’ve got to figure out the how if we’re going to do it because there’s a couple of options.”

The main proponent of the project, Kevin Reed, is a 42-year-old honorary lieutenant-colonel of an army reserve unit in southwestern Ontario. Memorial University of Newfoundland president Rick Hillier, Canada’s retired general, was the first to institute the policy, and Reed says the move inspired him to get other universities on board.

So far, Reed says the University of Ottawa, his alma mater, and the Universities of Windsor and Calgary are all on board.

]]>http://www.macleans.ca/education/uniandcollege/u-regina-considers-joining-project-hero/feed/0“Project Hero” catches on at four universitieshttp://www.macleans.ca/education/uniandcollege/project-hero-catches-on-at-four-universities/
http://www.macleans.ca/education/uniandcollege/project-hero-catches-on-at-four-universities/#commentsWed, 24 Jun 2009 20:11:40 +0000macleans.cahttp://oncampus.macleans.ca/education/?p=4896Children of fallen soldiers will get four years free tuition at participating schools

According to The Belleville Intelligencer, an Ontario-based military reserve officer is trying to persuade all Canadian universities to offer free tuition to the children of soldiers who have died in the line of duty in Afghanistan.

Kevin Reed, a 42-year-old honorary lieutenant-colonel of an army reserve unit in southwestern Ontario, says he was inspired by the work of Rick Hillier, Canada’s retired general. Hillier is now the chancellor at Memorial University of Newfoundland, which was the first to institute the policy.

So far, Reed says the University of Ottawa, his alma mater, and the Universities of Windsor and Calgary are all on board. He says OttawaU’s president, Allan Rock, was quick to support the idea.

The details vary, but Reed says the schools have all agreed to offer four years of paid tuition, plus two years of room and board (provided the student lives on campus) to all children of Canadian Forces staff who are killed in an operational mission since the start of Canada’s war in Afghanistan. As of now, Reed says there are about 30 Canadian children who have lost a parent in the conflict.

And how does he intend to spread the word to other schools?

“I’ve just been going to one university at a time, and we’ll continue to do so until we get ‘em all.”

]]>http://www.macleans.ca/education/uniandcollege/project-hero-catches-on-at-four-universities/feed/0What we rememberhttp://www.macleans.ca/authors/michael-petrou/what-we-remember/
http://www.macleans.ca/authors/michael-petrou/what-we-remember/#commentsTue, 11 Nov 2008 20:10:41 +0000Michael Petrouhttp://macleans.wordpress.com/?p=17107'We can and must hope for a more peaceful world. We should also understand that there are times when peace, and freedom, must be fought for'

This morning, my wife and I took our daughter to the Remembrance Day ceremonies at the National War Memorial in Ottawa. My daughter is 18 months old, and this is the second time she’s been. I will continue to take her until she’s old enough to decide on her own whether she wants to attend, and I hope she will continue to come after that.

On Wellington Street, just before Parliament Hill, we ran into one of my wife’s colleagues who had just come from a ceremony at her son’s school. She said it was moving. Some parents cried as their children sang “Blowin’ in the Wind,” “One Tin Soldier,” “Where Have all the Flowers Gone?” and “Imagine.”

I wasn’t at the ceremony, and perhaps there was much more to it than that. I’m sure the kids sounded beautiful. Nevertheless, featuring four mostly vacuous Vietnam era anti-war songs on Remembrance Day reflects a profound ignorance of what the day is about.

War is a horrible, nasty business. It is natural and proper that we are repulsed by it. But this is precisely why on Remembrance Day we honour those who went to wars, and recall with gratitude the men and women who died fighting them. They understood that, as terrible as war is, there are times when avoiding it is a greater sin. There was nothing honourable or just about pacifism during the Second World War. Refusing to fight the Nazis in practice meant helping them. Neutrality is an attractive concept, but it is an ugly code to live by.

I grew up in the 1970s and 80s and realize that I was extraordinarily fortunate not to have experienced war – at least until I was an adult and covered it as a journalist. But I was also lucky as a boy to have known relatives who took part in the cataclysmic conflicts between freedom and totalitarianism that marked the 20th century. It fueled in me an appreciation for what they and millions of others accomplished, and a drive to learn more about the wars they fought. I recall that Remembrance Day ceremonies at my public school involved reciting John McCrae’s brilliant and evocative poem, “In Flanders Fields,” and listening to veterans who came to share their memories. I think that even as a 10 year old I would have recognized that something didn’t smell right singing a song that asked of these men: “When will they ever learn? When will they ever learn?”

Today, sadly, a new generation of Canadian children is growing up with a much more direct experience of their loved ones going to war, and sometimes not coming back. It would be fitting if these children could attend Remembrance Day ceremonies at their schools that celebrated the bravery and commemorated the sacrifice of their parents, rather than digging up hippie anthems that stress the futility and foolishness of what soldiers do. Imagining a world where there is “nothing to kill or die for” doesn’t change the fact that this isn’t the world we live in. We can and must hope for a more peaceful world. We should also understand that there are times when peace, and freedom, must be fought for.